<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Sunday, September 24, 2006

"Root Causes," Propaganda, and Rear-View Mirror Driving 
RightWing Nut House on "root causes:"


First of all, identifying “root causes” is all well and good. But short of massive transfers of wealth, overthrowing the despots who are sitting on top of all that oil, and allowing the State of Israel to be destroyed, just what the devil are we supposed to do to assuage this massive rage against us?


Rick Moran is responding to this leaked intelligence report, characterized by the Washington Post and the New York Times as saying that the invasion of Iraq "hurt the fight against terror."

These dopes don't know what the war on terror is. First of all, the U.S. has not declared war on all forms of terrorism, and not all terrorism is created equal. The creation of thousands of rock-throwing yahoos raging impotently in the streets is of little concern to the United States. The Unites States is concerned specifically about "terrorism of global reach."

The U.S. is winning the game on the field, and the Times is saying the concession stands aren't making a profit. Who the heck cares about the concession stands?


According to officials familiar with the document, it describes the situation in Iraq as promoting the spread of radical Islam by providing a focal point, with constant reinforcement of an anti-American message for disaffected Muslims.


Yes, the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a primary recruiting tool for terror organizations. So am I to believe that had the United States not invaded Iraq, terror organizations would have stopped recruiting?

Bullshit.

They would think of something else and recruit on that basis. Before Iraq it was US forces stationed on the Arabian peninsula. Before that it was US support of Israel. Or it was US forces in Somalia.

If they weren't using Iraq in their recruiting propaganda they'd STILL be recruiting over Afghanistan. Or they'd fire some rockets at Israel.

The April NIE, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," does not offer policy prescriptions.


Wow. Gee. You're really helpful. Thanks. Do you drive your family around by looking in the rear view mirror, too?

The goal of toppling Saddam's regime was not to prevent the formation of two-bit operators elsewhere. The goal of toppling Saddam's regime was to cut off Al Qaeda and other jihadist kooks from an obvious potential source of WMD technology. This goal was achieved. The "worst-case" scenario is SIGNIFICANTLY less probable than it would have been with a friendly Saddam with a reconstituted nuclear program in a position to ply Al Qaeda goons with materiel for a dirty bomb or chemical attack in exchange for a tacit agreement not to target his regime.

The Saudis had no such programs and were themselves targeted by Al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein's regime was far more secular, and yet he was not targeted by Al Qaeda. Any of Saddam's apologists want to explain that to me?

Why did Clinton bomb the factory in Sudan? Was he lying to us then?

The creation of more inept terror cells of limited reach and capability, incapable of coordination without the risk of exposing themselves to capture or killing, is not a huge price to pay compared with a Saddam with a reconstituted WMD program and a shadowy force of Salafists willing to use it against Israel, the U.S., or anyone else.

The elephant in the room - which seems wholly lost on the Post, the Times, and the Intel services, is that the US was attacked on 9/11 without having invaded Iraq. The USS Cole was attacked without us having invaded Iraq. Two African embassies were destroyed, and hundreds murdered, without us having invaded Iraq. The Khobar Towers were destroyed, without us having invaded Iraq. The WTC was attacked in 2003 without us having invaded Iraq (well, except for Desert Storm. But that state of affairs would have existed without Bush II attacking Iraq anyway.)

US Forces in Mogadishu were attacked without us having invaded Iraq.

Chris Stedham was beaten, shot, and thrown dead to the tarmac without us having invaded Iraq.

They bombed a discotheque in Berlin without us having invaded Iraq.

They kill Israelis by the dozen, and Israel didn't invade Iraq.

Nobody on the Achille Lauro invaded Iraq that I can recall. The wheelchair bound Leon Hofstetler, murdered and pushed overboard by people working for a man whom Saddam Hussein had put up and given succor to, didn't invade Iraq.

So these dorks want me to think that us invading Iraq creates more terror than we otherwise would have?

Spare me.

Even if it did, a substantial portion of those people are going to Iraq, where they're getting killed.

The intelligence services should focus less on handwringing stupid rear-view-mirror driving and more on finding terrorist scumbags so they can be captured or killed.

These bastards will recruit no matter what we do. And they will still score local victories, or create them, to put them in their recruiting ads, no matter what we do.

The Times and Post pay no attention to the antiproliferation benefits of taking down Saddam - benefits which paid off in Libya as well - and which were at the heart of the reason to remove him from power.

Now go tap some cell phones, you wankers.

Splash, out

Comments:
A totally righteous rant on your part. Two corrections. You mentioned the WTC attack of 2003 while it should have been 1993 and you had the wrong name of the guy on the Achille Lauro. It was Klinghoffer IIRC.

Otherwise I think you made excellent points and I really don't understand the short-sighted idiots from the NYT and the Post and the other media who just can't seem to understand that fighting terrorists over there rather than in our local malls is a better choice all around. Keep up the preaching.
 
Robert, not Chris Stedham. He was a Navy diver. We named an Aegis destroyer in his honor.

Otherwise, spot on. The number of people who believe we were safer 9/10/01 than now is astonishing.

Butch
USN
 
Since we don't have access to the (yet another) original leaked classified document, this discussion is predicated on the assumption (a damned questionable one) that the characterization of the NIE in the NYT and WaPo is accurate and complete.

Personally, I'd like to know whether those who jump to the conclusions characterized in the NIE investigated the possibilty that the increase in Jihadist threat is due not merely to the invasion of Iraq, but due, at least in part, to the successes of the terrorists on 9/11 and 7/7, in Spain and England since, the 'cartoon riots', the earlier riots centered in Paris but that manifested across Europe, the Bali bombing, the various incidents in India and Pakistan over the last 5 years, the relative freedom of maneuver Jihadists have had in North Africa, the recent false characterization of Papal comments, and the lack of resolve of the UN to do ANY DAMN THING about any of these globally disruptive events.

Just freakin' wondering.

Dave
 
Update: The White House is contesting the characterization of the report.
 
Butch,

USS Stethem (DDG-63) is an Arleigh Burke class Aegis Destroyer. The Cruisers are named after battles.

And remember, the scumbag who murdered Stethem was released back to Hezbollah by the Sitzpinkelners

Scott
 
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!